Rules of Engagement and Battle Logs

[A1Kaid]

I've been reading about Rules of Engagement for US Forces in Iraq.

One thing I thought was interesting is, militants attempting to surrender to a AH; their surrender cannot be deemed valid and hence are still valid targets. Hence, the AH can still engage the targets though they are surrendering. Situation like this did happen in Iraq, after militants exited a dump trunk and surrendered to an AH (not sure how they conveyed this but they did), US soldiers in the AH radio back to superiors, superiors/lawyer stated though militants are surrendering they cannot surrender to an AH hence are still viable targets, the AH fires a hellfire missile at the two militants.



May be we can make something out of this thread, but this subject is complex and very interesting.

 

[Android]

I believe "Every thing is fair in love and war".

 

[A1Kaid]

That's not a Rule of Engagement, mate this discussion is above you, be gone.

 

[VCheng]

Surrender is not acceptable when it is made after resistance has become futile, for example, a sniper giving up when he has run out of ammunition. So if militants are surrendering after being cornered and outgunned, their surrender is not acceptable under Rules of Engagement.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Surrender is not acceptable when it is made after resistance has become futile, for example, a sniper giving up when he has run out of ammunition. So if militants are surrendering after being cornered and outgunned, their surrender is not acceptable under Rules of Engagement.

What a logic. I am speechless.

 

[silko]

What a logic. I am speechless.

well, it does kind of make you annoyed doesn't it?

if some taliban terrorists kills X number of Pakistani army men and then runs out of ammo and waves a white flag to surrender. will you just arrest him or kill him?

 

[VCheng]

What a logic. I am speechless.

You may want to read this then:

The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict by Leslie C. Green

ISBN-10: 1929446292
ISBN-13: 978-1929446292

 

[Lone Shooter]

well, it does kind of make you annoyed doesn't it?

if some taliban terrorists kills X number of Pakistani army men and then runs out of ammo and waves a white flag to surrender. will you just arrest him or kill him?

so what will happen if a talib kills 20 and still has ammo to fight but surrenders?

so by that account anyone who has killed atleast one person cannot surrender? tough ask i would say..

 

[TaimiKhan]

well, it does kind of make you annoyed doesn't it?

if some taliban terrorists kills X number of Pakistani army men and then runs out of ammo and waves a white flag to surrender. will you just arrest him or kill him?

I am not annoyed buddy, i am wondering what kind of a rule that is. If that is the rule i wonder why armies fighting with each other take prisoners as that is what exactly they do. They fight and when they know they are loosing, they surrender. I am not just talking in precept of taliban and pak army soldiers or other non-conventional fighting. And if we did use this rule in the operational area, the same US and western powers came crying of human rights violations and other stuff.

Who makes such rules and for whom ??

And just not to derail the thread, talibans hardly surrender, they attack to be killed and not to surrender.

 

[Haseebullah]

well, it does kind of make you annoyed doesn't it?

if some taliban terrorists kills X number of Pakistani army men and then runs out of ammo and waves a white flag to surrender. will you just arrest him or kill him?

Who do you think is being trained in our De-radicalization centers!Surrendered and captured both,we ain't Americano,we DONT kill people for fun.

 

[gambit]

Surrender is not acceptable when it is made after resistance has become futile, for example, a sniper giving up when he has run out of ammunition. So if militants are surrendering after being cornered and outgunned, their surrender is not acceptable under Rules of Engagement.

I have to disagree here. The act of surrender must be accepted at any time, even AFTER the combatant has killed to the exhaustion of his ability to continue the fight, be that exhaustion is physical or resources. But relevant to the starter comment, corollary to the act of surrender is equally important that custodial possession be possible, in other words, there must be someone available to take the surrendered into custody and security. A helo cannot do that. The aircrew is under no obligation to exit the aircraft and become custodians of the surrendered. But shooting them is equally problematic legally and morally. If the aircrew is not under legal obligations to take custody, does the act of surrender itself permanent, meaning does the act rendered the combatant morally and legally obligated to cease hostility even though no one is available to take him in to custody? If so, then shooting them is morally reprehensible and legally liable. But if not, then shooting them may be morally reprehensible but not legally liable.

It is an interesting subject to debate in a rational manner because it is applicable to all but soon enough the anti-US trolls will degenerate the scholarly and intellectual discussion into nothing more than an anti-US hate fest.

 

[Rafi]

I have to disagree here. The act of surrender must be accepted at any time, even AFTER the combatant has killed to the exhaustion of his ability to continue the fight, be that exhaustion is physical or resources. But relevant to the starter comment, corollary to the act of surrender is equally important that custodial possession be possible, in other words, there must be someone available to take the surrendered into custody and security. A helo cannot do that. The aircrew is under no obligation to exit the aircraft and become custodians of the surrendered. But shooting them is equally problematic legally and morally. If the aircrew is not under legal obligations to take custody, does the act of surrender itself permanent, meaning does the act rendered the combatant morally and legally obligated to cease hostility even though no one is available to take him in to custody? If so, then shooting them is morally reprehensible and legally liable. But if not, then shooting them may be morally reprehensible but not legally liable.

It is an interesting subject to debate in a rational manner because it is applicable to all but soon enough the anti-US trolls will degenerate the scholarly and intellectual discussion into nothing more than an anti-US hate fest.

I agree there is a dilemma here, but if possible - a surrender must always be respected -

 

[gambit]

I agree there is a dilemma here, but if possible - a surrender must always be respected -

Sure. But equally important is custodial possession and that respect is contingent upon presence, meaning someone must be PHYSICALLY available to accept authority over the surrendered. If we argue that the helo aircrew is morally and legally obligated to accept surrender and custodial possession, then why not say the same for Iraqi soldiers who surrendered to a drone, an aircraft whose human presence is different only in mode -- remote.

The US Navy -- Fact File: RQ-2A Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

The surrender of Iraqi troops to an unmanned aerial vehicle did actually happen.

Imagine the consternation of the Pioneer aircrew who called the commanding officer of Wisconsin and asked plaintively, "Sir, they want to surrender, what should I do with them?"

It is neither difficult nor absurd to imagine. If anything, what was supposed to be 'imagined' probably did happened, that the drone operator did not know what to do.

Important to this discussion, for as long as it is reasonably scholarly and intellectual, is WHY the act of surrender must be respected. The demand for this respect have been documented throughout history, from legal edicts to moral instructions, across cultures and civilizations.

 

[A1Kaid]

I have to disagree here. The act of surrender must be accepted at any time, even AFTER the combatant has killed to the exhaustion of his ability to continue the fight, be that exhaustion is physical or resources. But relevant to the starter comment, corollary to the act of surrender is equally important that custodial possession be possible, in other words, there must be someone available to take the surrendered into custody and security. A helo cannot do that. The aircrew is under no obligation to exit the aircraft and become custodians of the surrendered. But shooting them is equally problematic legally and morally. If the aircrew is not under legal obligations to take custody, does the act of surrender itself permanent, meaning does the act rendered the combatant morally and legally obligated to cease hostility even though no one is available to take him in to custody? If so, then shooting them is morally reprehensible and legally liable. But if not, then shooting them may be morally reprehensible but not legally liable.

It is an interesting subject to debate in a rational manner because it is applicable to all but soon enough the anti-US trolls will degenerate the scholarly and intellectual discussion into nothing more than an anti-US hate fest.

in other words, there must be someone available to take the surrendered into custody and security. A helo cannot do that. The aircrew is under no obligation to exit the aircraft and become custodians of the surrendered. But shooting them is equally problematic legally and morally. If the aircrew is not under legal obligations to take custody, does the act of surrender itself permanent, meaning does the act rendered the combatant morally and legally obligated to cease hostility even though no one is available to take him in to custody? If so, then shooting them is morally reprehensible and legally liable. But if not, then shooting them may be morally reprehensible but not legally liable.

That's exactly what I'm getting at here, good post. In the situation I read, It didn't seem there were any ground forces in the immediate area to undertake the surrendering of the militants, but apparently they may have been some troops nearby (I suppose not deemed close enough to the area of operation), and after the aircrew radioed to their superiors they were given the approval to attack the militants even after their surrender. Interesting scenario. So I suppose militants should simply not bother surrendering to any AH, as they may remain viable targets even after surrender. I think the militants do learn and adjust their tactics and their own rules of engagements.

 

[A1Kaid]

Sure. But equally important is custodial possession and that respect is contingent upon presence, meaning someone must be PHYSICALLY available to accept authority over the surrendered. If we argue that the helo aircrew is morally and legally obligated to accept surrender and custodial possession, then why not say the same for Iraqi soldiers who surrendered to a drone, an aircraft whose human presence is different only in mode -- remote.

The US Navy -- Fact File: RQ-2A Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

It is neither difficult nor absurd to imagine. If anything, what was supposed to be 'imagined' probably did happened, that the drone operator did not know what to do.

Important to this discussion, for as long as it is reasonably scholarly and intellectual, is WHY the act of surrender must be respected. The demand for this respect have been documented throughout history, from legal edicts to moral instructions, across cultures and civilizations.

Important to this discussion, for as long as it is reasonably scholarly and intellectual, is WHY the act of surrender must be respected. The demand for this respect have been documented throughout history, from legal edicts to moral instructions, across cultures and civilizations.

Well isn't the act of surrender and the guidelines regarding that outlined and stated in the Geneva convention as well as the Hague Convention 1907. Though I do understand capability to take possession to secure the surrender is important otherwise the surrender could change status (which is also a violation of war AFAIK).

This is what the Article 23 of the Hague convention 1907 has to state

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Do you think rule of "no quarter" is also at play here? It's forbidden to give no quarter in laws of war...